The Hi-Tec Print

It was a partial print only - the LOGO was legible.

The Ramseys denied that any of them had owned Hi-Tec shoes or boots, however, it transpired that Burke had indeed owned a pair of Hi-Tec shoes which had compasses on the laces. This seems to have come out during the Grand Jury and Lin Wood was apparently more concerned with the leak than with the fact itself.

Elsewhere, it is being claimed that:-

The footprint found in the basement room was approximately an adult size 9-1/2.
Burke got new shoes on January 7, 1997 -- they were youth size 5.

Click to expand...

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID61/1825.html

Does this mean that the print couldn't have been Burke's? Absolutely not.

Here's why:-

Grade school Sizes
Age = 9 -10 Years
Inches = 9 1/8" - 9 13/16"
Kid's Size = 5 - 7

Men's Shoes Sizes
Inches = 10 1/2" - 10 2/3"
Men's Size = 9 1/2

http://www.fogdog.com/fog-determine-your-childs-shoe-size--bg-301801.html

There would be little more than half an inch difference in length between a youth size 5 and an adult size 9.5. That print was NOT complete enough to determine a 0.5 - 1 inch difference in length.

The Hi-Tec print cannot be dated.

TeamRamsey claim that it was recent because there was fast growing mould in the basement - proving that it must have been fresh, but photos taken many month apart showed there was no difference in the mould - it hadn't perceptibly grown or spread.

If Burke made the print - so what? He lived in the house and it certainly isn't evidence that he was involved in his sister's death.

The FACT is that the print is not going to catch any perp. Hi-Tecs are common enough footwear and almost 10 years have passed since the murder. It is ridiculous to hold it up as "evidence". It isn't.

You do good work, Jay.

Is the date correct? Jan. 7, 1997 is two weeks after JonBenet died.

Cypros said:

Is the date correct? Jan. 7, 1997 is two weeks after JonBenet died.

Click to expand...

Where are you seeing this date?

Jayelles said:

Where are you seeing this date?

Click to expand...

It is in your opening post Jayelles, along with JXXXXXX's link, which if you click on JXXXXXX's link it is a post there.

The BIG Question is HOW would JXXXXXX know new shoes were purchased?

I concur, people who live in a house leave signs they do live there.

EDited to ADD: I went back to JXXXXXX'a linkthat you posted and find that 'she' says she has inside info about 'the NEW shoes that were purchased that came from an inside source AND the CBI. That and five dollars will get you a frappachino at Starbucks. But all was not lost, I see BlueCrab is posting 'over' there.

I believe, not sure, that ALL of us have forever been calling the Hi Tech BOOTS - 'shoes'. They are hip deep in boots 'over' there. Most common folk call them sneakers 'shoes' am I right?

.

Hi Camper,

FWIW, I really don't think the CBI have been sharing case evidence with jameson. We all know she says more than her prayers.... Put it this way - if ANYONE is sharing information with someone who is known to make a living from selling to tabloids, then they should be investigated for malpractice. I have observed this particular individual for some time and I have noted the way that she misleads by a process of omissions and semantics. It is quite possible that the CBI gave information to the BPD and that Lou Smit had access to that information. We all know Lou Smit has leaked more information than he should have with jameson and he could have been the source, but in an effort to seem important, jameson is quite likely to omit the middle man and say she got it from the CBI. I'm afraid that seems to be the way it works. Large pinch of salt all the way.....

Regarding shoes/boots - I don't know if the LOGO was only on the sole of Hi-Tec boots or if the company put it on the sole of all their footwear. I am probably guilty of saying "shoes" when I should probably write "footwear".

Hi Jayelles,

I'm not a regular poster here on this forum, but have an OT question I'd like to ask you here as I don't want to start a whole thread for it. Thanks

My 84 year old mother knows I belong to a crime forum. Yesterday she told me she thinks the mother was right there when she was killed. She said JonBenet had plastic tape on her face and there was a tuft of lint attached to it that came off the mothers sweater.

Have you ever heard this?


Merci beaucoup Jayelles, SCandi

scandi said:

Hi Jayelles,

I'm not a regular poster here on this forum, but have an OT question I'd like to ask you here as I don't want to start a whole thread for it. Thanks

My 84 year old mother knows I belong to a crime forum. Yesterday she told me she thinks the mother was right there when she was killed. She said JonBenet had plastic tape on her face and there was a tuft of lint attached to it that came off the mothers sweater.

Have you ever heard this?


Merci beaucoup Jayelles, SCandi

Click to expand...

Hi Scandi. The fibres debate....

JonBenet had duct tape over her mouth. Experts believe it was placed there after she was dead or unconscious because there was a "perfect" lip print on the tape (as opposed to one which indicated her mouth was still moving after it was placed there).

John Ramsey removed the duct tape before he carried her upstairs after he found her. There is a crime scene photo showing the white blanket and the duct tape on the basement floor.

Patsy was wearing a red multi fleece jacket at the White's Christmas party on 25th and fibres which were "consistent" with this jacket were apparently found entwined in the knot of the garotte, in the paint tray where the paintbrush used to fashion the garotte lever came from and on the sticky side of the duct tape. Patsy was asked asked about these fibres in the 2000 Atlanta interviews.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

Now, the arguments for and against this evidence:-

It is not possible to declare fibres as a "match" - only that they are "consistent with".

Patsy admits being in the basement on Christmas Day wrapping presents - she could have shed fibres from her jacket at any time and these could have adhered to JonBenet quite innocently.

RST argue that the fibres are not from Patsy at all because her jacket was red-multi and they ask "why would only the red fibres have shed"....

... in fact, we know from the vanDam case that this is very possible. There were orange fibres found everywhere in the vanDam case and there was an afghan which was orange-multi. A fibres expert gave a lesson on shedding and explained why some fibres are more inclined to shed than others. When you have a mix of fibres in a garment, the fibres which are more inclined to shed will still shed and the fibres which are less inclined to shed won't! Simple as that. So depending on the mix (and many fabrics are mixed fibres) you may get a multi-coloured garment which sheds one particular colour more than any other.

So if the red fibre in Patsy's red-multi jacket was of the kind which shed profusely, then they could have been all over the house and would have adhered to any receptive host surface!

scandi said:

Hi Jayelles,

I'm not a regular poster here on this forum, but have an OT question I'd like to ask you here as I don't want to start a whole thread for it. Thanks

My 84 year old mother knows I belong to a crime forum. Yesterday she told me she thinks the mother was right there when she was killed. She said JonBenet had plastic tape on her face and there was a tuft of lint attached to it that came off the mothers sweater.

Have you ever heard this?


Merci beaucoup Jayelles, SCandi

Click to expand...

Scandi
Your mother may be 84 but her finger is definitely on the pulse!!

Jayelles said:

Hi Scandi. The fibres debate....

JonBenet had duct tape over her mouth. Experts believe it was placed there after she was dead or unconscious because there was a "perfect" lip print on the tape (as opposed to one which indicated her mouth was still moving after it was placed there).

John Ramsey removed the duct tape before he carried her upstairs after he found her. There is a crime scene photo showing the white blanket and the duct tape on the basement floor.

Patsy was wearing a red multi fleece jacket at the White's Christmas party on 25th and fibres which were "consistent" with this jacket were apparently found entwined in the knot of the garotte, in the paint tray where the paintbrush used to fashion the garotte lever came from and on the sticky side of the duct tape. Patsy was asked asked about these fibres in the 2000 Atlanta interviews.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

Now, the arguments for and against this evidence:-

It is not possible to declare fibres as a "match" - only that they are "consistent with".

Patsy admits being in the basement on Christmas Day wrapping presents - she could have shed fibres from her jacket at any time and these could have adhered to JonBenet quite innocently.

RST argue that the fibres are not from Patsy at all because her jacket was red-multi and they ask "why would only the red fibres have shed"....

... in fact, we know from the vanDam case that this is very possible. There were orange fibres found everywhere in the vanDam case and there was an afghan which was orange-multi. A fibres expert gave a lesson on shedding and explained why some fibres are more inclined to shed than others. When you have a mix of fibres in a garment, the fibres which are more inclined to shed will still shed and the fibres which are less inclined to shed won't! Simple as that. So depending on the mix (and many fabrics are mixed fibres) you may get a multi-coloured garment which sheds one particular colour more than any other.

So if the red fibre in Patsy's red-multi jacket was of the kind which shed profusely, then they could have been all over the house and would have adhered to any receptive host surface!

Click to expand...

Jayelles
Thanks for explaining that.
I understand now :doh:

Thank you so much for responding so quickly sd I'll see Mom tomorrow afternoon and give her the report. LOL

Did they make note of finding those red fibres anywhere else? If it was red angora I charges with electricity right away if it is around it, and will gravitate to other objects that also are charged. I did a lot of knitting and know this for a fact.

Oh, and yes Narlscat, Mom certainly does have her finger on the pulse!~


:blowkiss: Scandi

narlacat said:

Scandi
Your mother may be 84 but her finger is definitely on the pulse!!

Click to expand...

If my memory serves me correct, John pulled the tape off Jon Benet's mouth. If John was in any contact with his wife Patsy of course he would of had fibers and probably hair fibers from her. It only makes sense that when the tape came off that the fibers made contact.
If you have a cat your cats hair is going to be elsewhere other than your home.I'm just giving this as an example.
Amy

Sure.

But add that to the long lost of evidence that points to the Ramseys...

2 + 2 = 4

dottierainbow said:

If my memory serves me correct, John pulled the tape off Jon Benet's mouth. If John was in any contact with his wife Patsy of course he would of had fibers and probably hair fibers from her. It only makes sense that when the tape came off that the fibers made contact.
If you have a cat your cats hair is going to be elsewhere other than your home.I'm just giving this as an example.
Amy

Click to expand...

dottierainbow,

Also dont forget to fit Fleet White in here, he went back and took a long look at the tape that was over her lips, he noticed something curious about it.

And he was right there when JR removed it!


.

UKGuy said:

dottierainbow,

Also dont forget to fit Fleet White in here, he went back and took a long look at the tape that was over her lips, he noticed something curious about it.

And he was right there when JR removed it!
.

Click to expand...

Hi UK guy, great catch on fact that FW was either right there or arrived soon after John hollered.

Hi Jayelles, I quote part of your post #8 here, as follows:
" Patsy was wearing a red multi fleece jacket at the White's Christmas party on 25th and fibres which were "consistent" with this jacket were apparently found
entwined in the knot of the garotte, in the paint tray where the paintbrush used to fashion the garotte lever came from and on the sticky side of the duct tape. Patsy was asked about these fibres in the 2000 Atlanta nterviews."

Jayelles, I am wondering how olde the jacket was? IF it was olde, then consider that the fibres may be less inclined to 'shed' particularly after being cleaned commercially over time. IF PR was so keen on JonBenet wearing her red top to match PR, perhaps PR's jacket was new for Christmas of 1996.
OOPS back to topic of Hi Tech 'footwear'. Wonder who took Burke shopping that soon after JonBenets death? I recall he seemed to be wearing sad clothing to JonBenets funeral, pants too short, shirt not tucked in here and there.

JXXXXXX may have gotten to someones Fruit of the Looms, to dig up footwear info.

Those who do not know JXXXXXX, at one time she and her cohorts, were gathering up underwear for evidence. Anyone else remember that fiasco, years ago?

.
.

Camper said:

Hi UK guy, great catch on fact that FW was either right there or arrived soon after John hollered.

Hi Jayelles, I quote part of your post #8 here, as follows:
" Patsy was wearing a red multi fleece jacket at the White's Christmas party on 25th and fibres which were "consistent" with this jacket were apparently found
entwined in the knot of the garotte, in the paint tray where the paintbrush used to fashion the garotte lever came from and on the sticky side of the duct tape. Patsy was asked about these fibres in the 2000 Atlanta nterviews."

Jayelles, I am wondering how olde the jacket was? IF it was olde, then consider that the fibres may be less inclined to 'shed' particularly after being cleaned commercially over time. IF PR was so keen on JonBenet wearing her red top to match PR, perhaps PR's jacket was new for Christmas of 1996.
OOPS back to topic of Hi Tech 'footwear'. Wonder who took Burke shopping that soon after JonBenets death? I recall he seemed to be wearing sad clothing to JonBenets funeral, pants too short, shirt not tucked in here and there.

JXXXXXX may have gotten to someones Fruit of the Looms, to dig up footwear info.

Those who do not know JXXXXXX, at one time she and her cohorts, were gathering up underwear for evidence. Anyone else remember that fiasco, years ago?

.
.

Click to expand...

Camper,

Sure and of course did they find any of JR's or FW's fibers on said tape, was it the red fibers that FW was so curious about?

Something drew FW back to the wine-cellar, the attraction was greater that that to stay upstairs?

.

scandi said:

Did they make note of finding those red fibres anywhere else?

Click to expand...

Yep. In the paint tray where the paintstick was taken, which she said she never went near that day, and (this is the thing I can't get by) tied into the knots of the cord. I'm sure your Mom will be interested in that, scandi.

Quote by UKGuy:
"Something drew FW back to the wine-cellar, the attraction was greater that that to stay upstairs?"

UKGuy,

If I remember correctly,it was Linda Arndt that asked FW to guard the basement door,he may have misunderstood and thought she mean't the wine cellar.Why he took the liberty to touch things,I don't know,and is up for debate.

capps said:

Quote by UKGuy:
"Something drew FW back to the wine-cellar, the attraction was greater that that to stay upstairs?"

UKGuy,

If I remember correctly,it was Linda Arndt that asked FW to guard the basement door,he may have misunderstood and thought she mean't the wine cellar.Why he took the liberty to touch things,I don't know,and is up for debate.

Click to expand...

capps,

Yes your memory is fine and mine is poor.

ST's book says Arndt told Fleet White to guard the basement door. Instead, White ran back down to the little cellar room, picked up the black tape, and stared at it. By doing so, White unknowingly mishandled a critical piece of evidence.

I wonder if FW told ST just why the tape held such a mesmeric interest for him.

Prior to all this he headed straight to a phone punched in some numbers, then hung up. ST describes this as panicked behaviour?

.